Switch Theme:

Why is 40K so much more popular than Fantasy?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el






Richmond, VA

I just like the 40K fluff better than the WFB fluff (for nutters) and back in my college days, I knew more 40K players than fantasy players, so my fantasy armies gradually faded away...

 
   
Made in gb
Freaky Flayed One




England

I don't think will never understand what people find appealing about sci-fi.

But i do think the reason for its success is indeed stems from sci-fi, although the game is far stronger than say Lotr, i think its fair to say that fantasy is superior tactically.

But then again im very bias, as i hate sci-fi and love fantasy.

Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains. - Karl Marx 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Missouri

Says the guy with a Necron for an avatar?

Anyway, I know it's hard to believe but there are people out there who do think differently than you. Everyone has their own tastes and interests and I, personally, don't know why it bothers you so much.

Why do I like sci-fi more? Because fantasy has been literally done to death, and when you get down to it, GW's brand isn't any different from Tolkien or any other generic fantasy setting. 40k's background is heavily "influenced" by other sources as well, but there's still a lot of originality in it despite all that and indeed some ideas that I just haven't seen before. And like it's been said, it's a lot more open-ended than the fantasy setting.

I like Dark Elves though, but I honestly don't see myself finishing that army anytime this decade. I've got ten cold one knights and a sorceress, still unpainted or boxed up since release. The models are cool, that's why I got them, but they just aren't that interesting, I can't get motivated. I've read the background and it's all pretty "meh" to me, I'm more fascinated by the small amount of Tau fluff that exists than I am about Dark Elves. When I read the Dark Elves army book I feel like I'm reading a Tolkien novel again...been there, done that.

All that said, I don't have anything against fantasy or anyone who's interested in it. Like I said, everyone is different, everyone's interested in different things for different reasons and I'm not going to give anyone crap if they don't give me any. But I apparently don't get the same amount of respect being a 40k player, it's obvious in any "40k vs. Fantasy" thread the amount of elitism that exists among some WHF players. Like ol' Darth here who simply can't wrap his head around the fact that sci-fi has any kind of following at all, or all the other nonsense spouted off in similar threads about WHF players being smarter or more mature. "My game's better than your game!"

Well you know what? Historical gamers hate the both of us, and chess players think we're all slowed. Get over it.

 Desubot wrote:
Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.


"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." 
   
Made in gb
Freaky Flayed One




England

ok, i see where you're coming from, lets just forgive and forget.

Warhammer is Warhammer, and even with our own predisposed opinion's, we are all bound by our enjoyment for Warhammer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/28 11:40:07


Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains. - Karl Marx 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Missouri

Or our undying hatred of Games Workshop.

 Desubot wrote:
Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.


"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Indiana

I personally like to paint the fantasy range, but I wont play it personally until the game is balanced. Right now it is just grossly unbalanced.

Whereas in 40k every codex can come up with *at least* one Tourney level list.

When Demons can pretty much pick an assortment at random and beat 4-5 different books that made a list tooled to beat demons, something is wrong.



​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





A bizarre array of focusing mirrors and lenses turning my phrases into even more accurate clones of

40K has the presence of subtle homoeroticism. Why do you think gamers play with other guys so much instead of with girls? They like to say "girls don't game" and "girls just like cutesy games like mario and the wii" but I know the real reason.

edit: and it's not crippling social anxiety and fear of the opposite sex. Those are just covers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/28 16:38:06


WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS WARHAMS

2009, Year of the Dog
 
   
Made in za
Junior Officer with Laspistol





South Africa

This is gina sound mean but I think its because people are like sheep,we tend to fold to what our friends/peers are doing.We see other peole playing whatever for "Y" reason and when we see that everyone else is doin it to we go along with it.Even GW has done this they are more into updating 40K and bringing out new models and such.So I think it is because more people play 40k and it gets more exposure and thats why I think it does better,but well wether you play 40K or WHFB you must admit large super-human men with large guns and tanks are just a bit more cool then a horde of haflings with bows.



EDIT-But havin said all that,is there any data saying that 40k is more popular than WHFB?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/03/01 08:04:23


"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."-Groucho Marx
 
   
Made in us
Nimble Pistolier





prolly because the kind of pepl who would be interested in either are arguably more interested in science fiction than fastasy.

501 Agathonian Grenadiers
Blood Angels strike force

Glory for the first man to die!

the caption says " when there is something scary at the front, put something even scarier at the back." 
   
Made in gb
Major





The reason is that most new hobbyists have been exposed to a huge amount of sci-fi but not much high fantasy.

When I got into the hobby in the early 90's I had grown up on Star Wars and Star Trek. At the time my Favourite 'new' shows where the X-Files and Babylon 5. Tolkienesque high fantasy was just underrepresented in popular culture. Naturally when I first discovered the cool store selling games it was the huge armoured warriors and weird alien races that captured my adolescent imagination.

As I've grown older I developed an appreciation for Fantasy both as a gaming system and genre. But boys stick with what they know. These days I imagine many kids have grown up watching the newer Star Wars films and shows like Stargate and BSG. No surprise that outer space has the greater pull for the new hobbyist. I predict this will remain the case as long as Sci-Fi remains prevalent in popular culture.

"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!" 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Scotland

The reason 40k is more popular is this:
Warhammer Fantasy is very very boring!
All the games I've watched and taken part in have never
been as free flowing as 40k.
Also some bizarre rules like only the front rank of
a unit of archers can fire..Really? What about
Agincourt? I don't recall only the first rank of archers
being allowed to fire there.Its things like this that just
don't make sense!Why build a unit of archers if you can
only use a small part of it?Complete bollocks!

 
   
Made in us
The New Miss Macross!





Deep Frier of Mount Doom

i prefer 40k because (at least at a well stocked store) it looks more impressive at the table. while fantasy games tend to have more models and an equally impressive variety of models compared with 40k, the vast majority of fantasy games that i've seen have 2-4 little pieces of terrain and that's it. maybe a hill to put some artillery on and a small plot of woods or two in an out of the way spot. lots of players don't want to have to worry about the terrain blocking their already restricted tray movements and just skip it. the only board i saw that was choked full of terrain was a wood elf on wood elf game about 6 years ago. with 40k, most people put down full and/or ruined buildings, bunkers, hills, forests, etc. so the table looks impressive. half the enjoyment for me in playing minis games is the look of the battle (like a diorama). i'd probably be bored playing the BEST EVER minis rules (invented at some future point) if they required everyone to play with colored blocks for units and 2d cardstock for terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/28 20:20:27


 
   
Made in se
Powerful Pegasus Knight





Well, I enjoy 40k mostly due to fluff, as I haven't really started the tabletop game yet (but on my way).

I got my first real introduction to 40k through Dawn of War (yeah hit me...) I had heard about it before but never been really interesting (40k that is). After a time I got interested in the "fluff" and I was stuck.....

Got my first miniatures in Christmas (AoBR) and in a few weeks I'm going to town and buy some IG-troopers

Also I have to disagree with LuciusAR. As I'm the opposite....
I'm hooked on fantasy-books, and I've red ALOT. Sci-fi Have never appealed to me (Before 40k) not star wars, not any sci-fi books and absolutely not star trek. But I still like 40k much more than fantasy.... (Also I like tanks.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/28 21:24:24


If I use -><- I'm not mocking you, it's a reflex from using the " silly" icon on every other forum.
However, if I use this -><- I might just mock you.
Rats with hats: 3k
: 750p
Karash (at the home page of SATW) on the subject of America's fear of nudity:

which gets even weirder, seeing how you americans tend to use [the F-word] more often in various meanings than a smurf would use "smurf".


Nearly a quote except the censorship.  
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Missouri

Deff Dread red Edition wrote:This is gina sound mean but I think its because people are like sheep,we tend to fold to what our friends/peers are doing.


Well, think about it for a minute. If no one in your area plays WHF then are you really going to waste all that money on models you'll never get to use? If you're going to dump a few grand on worthless plastic figures then you might as well pick a system you're most likely to get a game in with.

 Desubot wrote:
Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.


"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." 
   
Made in pl
Despised Traitorous Cultist





Gotta agree that in Europe WHFB seems to be more popular. Howeverm, after I've seen some WHFB minis (some knights, ogres, dwarfs) I must agree that they can't compare to WH40K ones. Also all the fluff and atmosphere is much more inspiring and appealing to me. Nothing better than the Orbital Bombardment or some Drop Pod assault from above. Steam tanks are just silly, and don't get me started about dwarfs

"Let the Galaxy burn" 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

Maybe because the whole block-movement thing actually happened in Europe, whereas, if you look at US military history, it pretty much begins with guerilla actions, and everything with any sort of real personal interest is based around the concept of squads, not blocks.

Fantasy has held little interest to me, for a few reasons.

First, while there are some guns, they're woefully underpowered. I understand that this is to make it a good game, but come on. The armoured charge was useless at Crecy, and again at Agincort. There is no way that a a few columns of cavalry should be able to beat an equal value in archers/musketeers. And yet, they do, repeatedly. That's annoying, but the game designers want the charge to be decisive, not the shooting, which is remarkably unlike the real world.

In 40k, while the same thing is true, at least it's easier to envision. I can accept that a few genestealers can avoid being shot up until they maul someone in combat because I saw that movie (aliens). I can accept that the eldar like to get in close with their power swords in spite of all the armoured guys with laser guns shooting at them, because I saw that movie too (star wars). But I cannot buy that a small number of knights can make a successful charge against a gunline, because that's just dumb. History tells me that gunlines trump knights (and infantry blocks too) but god forbid that happen on the tabletop.

Secondly, Fantasy has always seemed far more luck-based to me, than 40k. Maybe it's because I haven't played it enough to really understand the nuances by which the effects of luck are mitigated, however, far too many things hinge on single die rolls. My cannons blow themselves up one in every six shots they take. Wizards explode themselves, just about anything other than basic warriors engaged in block-to-block combat have these ridiculously high chances of killing themselves.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, combat resolution just doesn't make sense to me. If I have a significantly tough model (say, a dragon), and I attack a bunch of peasants with it, the dragon should eat the peasants. But, what seems to happen is that the dragon kills two peasants, while the peasants are completely unable to hurt the dragon, and yet the dragon freaks out because OMG, I only killed two peasants, and then it tries to run away, and the peasants kill it. WTF!? I simply cannot understand how a model that kills some of its opponents, while taking no damage in return, can lose combat. This single rule makes fantasy lose a lot of appeal for me.

In 40k, this doesn't happen. If I have a model that my opponent cannot hurt (say, a wraithlord attacking a bunch of peasants), it doesn't matter if it kills them slowly or quickly, it isn't going to lose this fight.

You might say this is necessary for some reason, but I don't buy it. You can easily tarpit something like this in 40k, which takes it out of the game, strategically speaking. And you could do that in fantasy too. But not losing your model because, while it didn't get hurt, it didn't kill enough of the enemy.

To me, these things are what lead me to play 40k instead of fantasy. I could care less about how many models I need to paint. I do care that the game simply doesn't flow intuitively. When 20 archers cannot drop 5 knights before they're impaled on their lances, I think not. When a dragon cannot slowly chew through 20 peasants without getting scared, I think not.

   
Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

Fantasy has more in-game tactics then 40k, but has generaly fewer tactics elsewhere. In fantasy, anything can kill pretty much anything (just requires some insane luck), but a Lasgun Cannot pop a Land Raider. When actually playing, 40k is a meatgrinder, while fantasy requires skill. Few people have the Patience to learn the skill (The hard part of the game), and preffer the easier army building step to be where they pin their hopes. Simply put, many people would rather see a bunch of their enemies vanish in a shower of blood each round then to spend 3 rounds setting up a unit to blitz the enemy.

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

Oh, and on another note, Fantasy can (Litteraly) be won by one dice roll, purely because of the much larger psychology section.

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Florida

I think its more of a regional preference of games. I have seen some places where the community is more fantasy than 40k and others are more 40k than fantasy. I could write a paper just on that alone.

Comparing tournament records is another form of e-peen measuring.
 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Is it more popular.
Some of my friends always tell me how good Fantasy is in opposition to 40k.
But they are not good in 40k.

Fantasy is a bit boring if you ask me.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol






The eye of terror.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Fantasy has more in-game tactics then 40k, but has generaly fewer tactics elsewhere. In fantasy, anything can kill pretty much anything (just requires some insane luck), but a Lasgun Cannot pop a Land Raider. When actually playing, 40k is a meatgrinder, while fantasy requires skill. Few people have the Patience to learn the skill (The hard part of the game), and preffer the easier army building step to be where they pin their hopes. Simply put, many people would rather see a bunch of their enemies vanish in a shower of blood each round then to spend 3 rounds setting up a unit to blitz the enemy.


It's this post (the part about 40k being a meat grinder that allows little strategy) and many others like it that make me think that many of the people responding to this post are very bad at 40k. Because units can move in any direction, 40k actually requires more strategy because you have to think of all the possible outcomes and responses that your opponent is going to take to your action. This requires knowledge of movement rates and ranges, and at times (especially against skilled opponents) an almost chess-like sacrifice of units in order to accomplish your goal, be it preventing a powerful unit from claiming an objective for that last turn, or keeping a unit out of range of your really valuable units for a longer period of time. Granted there are some units (nob bikers and jetseer council spring to mind) that because of extreme durability and movement rates take limited strategy to use, if your opponent knows the tactics to stop them (and has the equipment available), he can actually minimize the effect of those units through playing the game well.

Sometimes I think that players become overwhelmed by the strategic complexity that 40k offers, and so think that the game is random or does not need strategy to win.

Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right

New to the game and can't win? Read this.

 
   
Made in gb
Major





Oscarius wrote:

Also I have to disagree with LuciusAR. As I'm the opposite....
I'm hooked on fantasy-books, and I've red ALOT. Sci-fi Have never appealed to me (Before 40k) not star wars, not any sci-fi books and absolutely not star trek. But I still like 40k much more than fantasy.... (Also I like tanks.)


Of course there will always be exceptions to every rule. My point was that for most people Sci-Fi will have been a more prevalent influence. In any given year the number of Science Fiction films and TV shows will vastly outnumber their Fantasy equivalents. In fact, when was the last time there was a Medieval fantasy TV show? I honestly can think of only a handful in my lifetime and they were all generally pretty rubbish.

"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!" 
   
Made in ie
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience






Nuremberg

Redbeard: For me the combat resolution is supposed to represent that one of those peasants might get lucky and stab the dragon in the eye. I agree though that it's a bit too easy.


I think they should never have put guns into Warhammer Fantasy.

   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

Redbeard wrote:First, while there are some guns, they're woefully underpowered. I understand that this is to make it a good game, but come on. The armoured charge was useless at Crecy, and again at Agincort. There is no way that a a few columns of cavalry should be able to beat an equal value in archers/musketeers. And yet, they do, repeatedly. That's annoying, but the game designers want the charge to be decisive, not the shooting, which is remarkably unlike the real world.

In 40k, while the same thing is true, at least it's easier to envision. I can accept that a few genestealers can avoid being shot up until they maul someone in combat because I saw that movie (aliens). I can accept that the eldar like to get in close with their power swords in spite of all the armoured guys with laser guns shooting at them, because I saw that movie too (star wars). But I cannot buy that a small number of knights can make a successful charge against a gunline, because that's just dumb. History tells me that gunlines trump knights (and infantry blocks too) but god forbid that happen on the tabletop.

Secondly, Fantasy has always seemed far more luck-based to me, than 40k. Maybe it's because I haven't played it enough to really understand the nuances by which the effects of luck are mitigated, however, far too many things hinge on single die rolls. My cannons blow themselves up one in every six shots they take. Wizards explode themselves, just about anything other than basic warriors engaged in block-to-block combat have these ridiculously high chances of killing themselves.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, combat resolution just doesn't make sense to me. If I have a significantly tough model (say, a dragon), and I attack a bunch of peasants with it, the dragon should eat the peasants. But, what seems to happen is that the dragon kills two peasants, while the peasants are completely unable to hurt the dragon, and yet the dragon freaks out because OMG, I only killed two peasants, and then it tries to run away, and the peasants kill it. WTF!? I simply cannot understand how a model that kills some of its opponents, while taking no damage in return, can lose combat. This single rule makes fantasy lose a lot of appeal for me.


I agree with everything in Redbeard's post. I've played WHFB and 40k for over 10 years. To me, WHFB boils down to:
1) Deployment - screw it up, and the game is over
2) Fiddly movement - people counting every 1/8th inch of movement, carefully angling units for overruns, and other incredibly boring and tedious "tactics"
3) Static Combat Resolution - every unit of cheapos starts with +5 CR, meaning that any elite unit, or any unit, needs to do 5 casualties before it has a chance of winning the fight - whaaaat?
4) Luck - as has been mentioned, a lot fewer dice are rolled, so that spectacularly bad charge of knights (with like 5 attacks) that whiffs means you're done

The tactics and strategy for both games are way different, and when you throw in the strength of magic in fantasy for some armies, it skews even further.

Which is why for my 'fantasy' kick, I prefer Warhammer Ancients. While not strictly fantasy, it uses the same engine, the armies within the sourcebooks are well balanced, and the weapons, troops, and lack of monsters and magic make it a better game imho.

Oh, and I've read Fantasy novels since 7th grade (about 1981), and still do, but prefer sci-fi for my wargaming. There is nothing in GW's stable of fantasy armies that I find interesting fluff-wise other than Brets (don't like the way the army plays), and VC (overpowered army book).

Legio Suturvora 2000 points (painted)
30k Word Bearers 2000 points (in progress)
Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in ie
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience






Nuremberg

LOTR is a better fantasy game I reckon, especially with the severe powercreep issues these days.
I'm very excited about War of the Ring. Could actually be an expansion that makes me collect elves, just so's I can have some of those Ents.

   
Made in ca
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman






Damn redbeard beat me to it. I will reiterate his point anyways. I think 40k is more popular in america (canada and US) as it ties in more to our experience. We never had large medeival battles, never had them tough in our history clases ect, it just isint as in tune to the culture. In europe you cant get away from it, the place is seeped in history. Castles evrywhere ect. So I think europe may be more culturaly disposed towards fantasy.

I think fantasy's ruleset is more complex then 40k's. So if 40k is more popular that may be a reason for it. (note i didint say fantasy's rules are worse/better, just more complex)

3000pts+ 
   
Made in us
Violent Enforcer




Charleston, SC, USA

I think the reason I like sci-fi fluff is that I can look at what our civilization is capable and theorize what would and wouldn't work and compare it to what GW's result was with 40k. Sure, there's things that stick in my gullet. Like why bolters are small missiles but they still have shell casings or that in that small of a caliber and the short ranges in which it's used (when compared to rocket propelled weapons) a rocket assisted round would be needlessly more expensive, potentially less accurate and would take up additional space. But because I can project how I think things will look in the future, it gives sci-fi realms an air of believability, even if it isn't believable outside of that context.
WFB's background just seems... made up. Period...

Now, as far as rule structure and game play goes I believe WFB wins hands down and that's mainly due to the movement phase being a total mess in 40k. In fantasy, yes a super powered lord choice on a dragon maybe able to gut most units, but you simply throw a trash unit in it's way, let it kill it, then counter charge it with. Or you can just shoot the hell out of it with anything strength 5 and up. Against a magic heavy army, if you have scouting elements or fliers or similar units you can easily attempt to pull off a wizard assassination or two and severely reduce your opponent's magic. Wizards are like artillery in WFB, capable of horrible destruction, but (typically) very vulnerable. A smart player can find a way around just about any WFB cheese. Now, the same cannot be said about Shrike+Assault Terminators+Land Raider lists, Nob Biker lists exploiting wound allocation or 4e's Tri-Falcon lists with the nigh indestructible transports delivering fire dragons who eat your tanks or harlequins who eat your troops.. That's not to say 40k has nothing but win buttons, but there are some lists out there for it that a seasoned player will struggle against even if his opponent is only on his 5th game..

=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ:80-S++G+M-B--I+Pwhfb06#+D++A+++/hWD-R+++T(T)DM++
======End Dakka Geek Code======
 
   
Made in us
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos





life.

Dice Monkey wrote:
AMP187 wrote:With Fantasy having an arguably more in-depth and intricate rule system, I wonder why 40K is so much more popular. Is it the fluff? The miniatures? Do most people think a future setting is cooler than a fantasy setting? What's yall's opinions on the matter?



I have noticed most of the 13 year olds gravitate towards 40K while fantasy players tend to be older and married. I can not think of the last time I saw a fantasy player under 20. For me crappy rules plus middle and high school kids playing 40K are a huge turn off.


i have three fantasy armies, 4th in the maing, and i'm 16.

I collect:

Grand alliance death (whole alliance)

Stormcast eternals

Slaves to Darkness - currently Nurgle but may expand to undivided.
 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

themandudeperson wrote:A smart player can find a way around just about any WFB cheese. Now, the same cannot be said about Shrike+Assault Terminators+Land Raider lists, Nob Biker lists exploiting wound allocation or 4e's Tri-Falcon lists with the nigh indestructible transports delivering fire dragons who eat your tanks or harlequins who eat your troops.. That's not to say 40k has nothing but win buttons, but there are some lists out there for it that a seasoned player will struggle against even if his opponent is only on his 5th game..


Right, whereas, according to recent GT stats, Fantasy has Vampire Counts and Daemons as viable army choices. Seems to me that there are win buttons in both games, but 40k has at least 4, maybe 5 armies able to compete at the top levels, whereas Fantasy has two. In terms of balancing the armies, 40k is a lot better than fantasy.

   
Made in ie
Longtime Dakkanaut







I think a huge amount of it is just down to what cought your eye originally.

I mean a young boy in general is more likely to see awesome space men with giant guns and armor, and think its awesome, then to see some elves or medieval bowmen and want to get playing.

That kind of initial interest can really make a difference in what you are playing later down the line.

That and if all your friends play 40k, and you want to try fantasy, you could get turned off it by finding it more difficult to get a game set up.

   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: